If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

Ok, given. It's mediots... yahoo mediots even. But those are the five rookies discussed in the video.

I haven't been paying attention to the preseason for teams other than Indy... are Rush and Hibby doing well enough to be mentioned ahead of the guys picked 3-10 ahead of them? Seems like Mayo/Love/Rudy might have gotten some love over Rush.

Also, it was interesting that the analyst suspects that Rush will be "a better player" than Danny. That's interesting... I've only seen Rush for two games but he looked more like "future solid starter" than "future star" to me.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

Ehh, whatever. All of those guys have looked pretty good in pre-season.

I think all those guys mentioned will turn out to be good players. Rush should be a solid starter for years. I see a player somewhere between the magnitude of Raja Bell and Eddie Jones. It's still a little early too tell on Hibbert IMO, but I would lean towards saying that he'll also be a solid starter. I think the key for Hibbert in this league is conditioning. If he wants to be a 30+ mpg starter, he needs to get in better shape. He's already taken steps towards that. Good for him, but he still needs to do more.

Rose should be a top tier PG in a few years. Won't be as good as Chris Paul, but will probably be right behind him. If he can stay healthy, I envision him as a young Steve Francis with better overall PG/playmaking ability.

I see Beasley as a better rebounding, more athletic version of an early Glen Robinson, and that's not a bad thing.

I think everything just depends on health for Oden. If he's healthy, he's going to be a dominant player on both ends of the court, but especially on defense. From what I've seen early on, this guy is a man child and already a big factor on both ends of the floor. His presence can't be measured in numbers. Opposing teams pretty much take him into account on every play, on every possession on both ends of the floor. You can just tell he's a factor, that other teams actually have to gameplan around him. There aren't a lot of those guys in this league.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

That is my feeling. Mayo is already lighting up the scoreboard. Rush and Hibbert are great, but Mayo is superstar material IMO.

He should be lighting up the scoreboard. He plays enough minutes and takes certainly plenty of shots. For a rookie he has a lot of freedom but perhaps that's because he is playing for what was an awful team last season.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

What about the "better than Granger" part? Anybody who's actually watched him in a Pacers uni see that in his future?

Yes, Rush seems to be ahead of where Granger was and I may have mentioned that at some point...and he might get to about that level...but I will be surprised if Rush is ever truly better than Granger. Part of the reason is that Granger is already very good...and I see Granger getting even better from here. Also, I don't think most players improve to the same extent as Danny has since he started...so Rush has to climb quite a bit.

...and some of this may be perception. We had more talent on the team when Granger started...and I believe Rush was a bit older than Granger coming into the league and played on a higher profile college team...and has simply more of an opportunity to shine.

The good news is, Rush is already better than his brother ever was....and should be much better.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

Shawne Williams was better than Granger, wasn't he? I haven't seen enough of Rush to comment really, but this conversation seems eerily familiar.

It takes hard work in any profession to improve. This is related to character, personality and drive. Williams may never amount to anything unless he works at it. It's not like his talent level is off the charts like a Lebron, so he as well as Rush and Granger need to work to improve.

Rush appears to be more driven...so I expect he has a better shot. Williams may work hard, but he needs to learn how to work smart. I doubt that happens...

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

Also, it was interesting that the analyst suspects that Rush will be "a better player" than Danny. That's interesting... I've only seen Rush for two games but he looked more like "future solid starter" than "future star" to me.

Thoughts?

Seems to me the perfect description for Granger "solid starter" "future star". When I think of Granger at this point I don't think star.

The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

The one major difference I've noticed between Danny and Brandon so far is that the game seems to come more naturally for Rush. When you watch Danny play, it always looks like he's trying really hard. Brandon has a level of smoothness that makes the game look easy for him. You hear it said that making it look easy is a quality of greatness. I'm not ready to annoit Rush yet, but if he has a work ethic similar to Danny's, he could wind up being a very special player.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

The one major difference I've noticed between Danny and Brandon so far is that the game seems to come more naturally for Rush. When you watch Danny play, it always looks like he's trying really hard. Brandon has a level of smoothness that makes the game look easy for him. You hear it said that making it look easy is a quality of greatness. I'm not ready to annoit Rush yet, but if he has a work ethic similar to Danny's, he could wind up being a very special player.

Brandon definitely looks smooth and less choppy than Danny. Part of that is, Brandon has a better handle...which already allows him to finish pretty well. He is also more aggressive than Granger was at a similar stage...both on offense and defense. He truly plays hard on both ends of the court. IMO, the sky is the limit for him if he keeps hungry and works on his game. He has the size, quickness, shooting ability and defensive tanacity to be a great one.....but you know, show me the money!

Ok, given. It's mediots... yahoo mediots even. But those are the five rookies discussed in the video.

I haven't been paying attention to the preseason for teams other than Indy... are Rush and Hibby doing well enough to be mentioned ahead of the guys picked 3-10 ahead of them? Seems like Mayo/Love/Rudy might have gotten some love over Rush.

Also, it was interesting that the analyst suspects that Rush will be "a better player" than Danny. That's interesting... I've only seen Rush for two games but he looked more like "future solid starter" than "future star" to me.

Thoughts?

You know I'm a big Rush fan, probably Kegboy and I were the top guys pulling to get him on the Pacers, but no freaking way I see Rush ahead of Mayo this year. I also don't see Rush topping out at Danny level (well Danny's top level that is).

Love might not tear it up right away but he's going to be strong. Both Lopez kids look to have a bigger impact than Hibbert. Westbrook is definitely the better athlete to Rush and should get a real shot.

In fact the ONLY issue I ever had with Westbrook was as the PG solution. But as a SG he's a damn nice player, a better version of Fred Jones. Better defense, better all-around game.

Rush and Hibbert have only one thing going for them this year, they might be asked to play a lot more than some of the other rookies, including Bayless.

BTW, smoothness is relative. Rush is a true SG and Danny is a true SF. Rush will never out rebound or out shot block Danny. We might as well say Danny looks smoother than Hibbert. I don't think Rush is as strong as Danny for another example.

Shawne Williams was better than Granger, wasn't he?

Smoother, yes. Apparently not as motivated. I don't fault the off-court thing, but I do fault his apparent response to it which was to not prove a point to the team with a bit of a chip.

Rush does have one big advantage over Danny - awareness. Brandon's strongest aspect was his court awareness and how he and Mario interacted at both ends of the court. They closed holes on defense and they help create spacing on offense.

Danny on the other hand has obviously struggled with a natural court awareness and given his intelligence I'd suspect he's got a habit of over thinking situations. Shawne's awareness wasn't much better which also kept him from moving past Danny.

I believe Rush was a bit older than Granger coming into the league and played on a higher profile college team

And much better coached. No offense to DG's coach but that Kansas team was run to perfection which is why Arthur also was a player of top interest. Mario has also been solid so far in Miami. Those kids along with the Memphis kids probably saw the closest thing to a pro situation they could. UCLA's program wasn't too far off either.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

You know I'm a big Rush fan, probably Kegboy and I were the top guys pulling to get him on the Pacers, but no freaking way I see Rush ahead of Mayo this year. I also don't see Rush topping out at Danny level (well Danny's top level that is).

Come on. The guy simply mentioned three of the top known rookies and then went on to mention two more that are being overlooked in Rush and Hibbert. He never said Rush would be ahead of OJ. But the man didn't have time to go down the whole darn list for goodness sakes. He skipped over the rest of the obvious selections and decided to devote some time to some darkhorses. And why not? Both have performed above expectations in the preseason. Both are already part of the regular rotation. And both, may I remind folks, did not get a chance to work on some early rookie kinks against NBA-level players during the summer. The two of them were not allowed to play in the summer league games and that left them at sort of a disadvantage compared to the other rookies. I’m glad they are getting some pub from folks because they deserved it and they earned it the old fashion way: they impressed their coaches, teammates, the opposition and the journalist who caught their games. That’s the way one should get his respect. It should not be handed to an individual ahead of time simply because of where they were drafted and the hype they come into the league with.

Lots of discussion here about Rush and Granger. Obviously Rush isn’t at Granger’s level yet nor is it a guaranteed he will eve get there. But I think its clear that at this stage of his career Rush is further along than Granger was when he was into his first month as a rookie in the NBA. But we shouldn’t be surprised by that. Rush was a big time prospect in high school and for the most part lived up to expectations while at a big time program like Kansas. He has been testing himself against the best at his level since 8th grade. Its not out of the question that Rush ends up being a better player.

This is a LOADED rookie class. It appears to be much better than last season’s. Folks should be happy that Hibbert and Rush are generating some positive buzz rather than dismissing any compliments.

Love might not tear it up right away but he's going to be strong. Both Lopez kids look to have a bigger impact than Hibbert. Westbrook is definitely the better athlete to Rush and should get a real shot.

There are a number of guys you didn’t mention that could be both better than Hibert and Rush and better than the four guys you listed above. But I’ll take on the four you listed one-by-one.

I love Love’s game. If he was 7 feet tall I would have taken him #1 because he is both smart and aggressive. But the truth is the dude is 6’7. Not the 6’9 they list him as, 6’7. That’s short even for a PF. Could he still end up being a very good player? Yes, because he brings so many great things to the table. But when you’re 6’7 and not that athletic and not that fast it makes it more difficult to score in the paint. And it seemed like at UCLA when Love was facing really big frontlines he missed a very high number of his shots. What makes one think that situation will get better in the pros where he’ll face bigger, stronger, even more athletic and most importantly even taller opponents? He’ll get minutes, he’ll get boards, he’ll give effort. But lets wait and see before we make claims about his greatness too.

Never had any doubts about Brook Lopez being a good player. What I love about him is his aggressiveness when looking for his shot. That’s something Roy ca learn from. And while some dismiss Brook’s athletic ability I think we can agree that its better than Roy’s as his stamina. After that there isn’t anything I can recall that B. Lopez is better at than Hibbert. Hibbert was always the much more efficient scorer/shooter (just check out their respective fg% in college). Roy is more skilled and has a higher bball IQ in my opinion. Roy also causes more problems for opponents in the paint. I wish Roy had been given chances in preseason games to play 30 plus minutes and shoot 19 times like Brook. But Roy’s minutes, for one reason or another, have been more limited. The Nets also don’t play the same style of ball as the Pacers. In other words the Nets appear to try to establish post play rather than taking quick three-point shots every other time down the court. Different system. Because of that and because the Nets don’t really have much in terms of height, Brook will likely get more minutes and put up a better numbers. But if you look at the stats put up by him and Roy during the preseason and consider the minute per game for each, Roy was probably a bit more impressive. Call it a tossup. Brook could end up being the better player but if that happens what’s the big deal? He’s supposed to be considering he was drafted 7 spots ahead of Roy.

As for Robin I ‘m willing to bet money Roy is and will be the better of the two. Robin took away the defensive double-teaming of Brook by the opposing players while at Stanford. I mean you had to keep an eye out on an above average 7 footer of course. But for the most part he rode Brook’s coattails. Robin was a glorified garbage man while at Stanford. He did his job rebounding and blocking shots but that’s about it. And what had he done in the summer league or the preseason to suggest he is going to be better than Roy? Some Phoenix bloggers even pointed out how the team may have made a mistake and a few have mentioned how clueless Robin has looked on the floor at times. Contrast to what folks have been saying about Roy n terms of his picking up things quickly and looking prepared. In fact its very possible that Roy generated more positive press and buzz than the Lopez Brothers combined this preseason (although Brook came on strng towards the end).

I don’t care if Westbrook is a better athlete than Rush. That doesn’t mean Westbrook will be the better player. If athleticism was the ultimate determination for NBA success then my boy Patrick Ewing Jr would have at least gone top five in this past draft. David Falk was right when he mentioned how idiotic most NBA GMs are and how they keep making the same mistakes. Falling in love with athleticism and potential is an example of this. There are a lot of great athletes drafted in the NBA who don’t amount to anything if they don’t know how to play, too immature to learn, or too uninterested I developing their skills. Now I’m not saying Westbrook is going to be a bad player. He may end up being great. I just never understood how he could get drafted that high when he had not proved that he had a good enough handle to be a fulltime point guard at the college level. Now we have to trust he’s going to be good enough to do be a point in the NBA? I’m not sold on that yet no matter how athletic that guy is. And considering he is not even a legit 6’3 his being a shooting guard puts him at a disadvantage.

By the way you are a fan of OJ mayo, right? Well if you put such a premium on athleticism then shouldn't you be devaluing OJ considering his level of athletic ability is the one negative trait according to NBA scouts? But I'm sure you realize has game even if he isn't a super athlete.

.

Rush and Hibbert have only one thing going for them this year, they might be asked to play a lot more than some of the other rookies, including Bayless.

That’s laughable if you think that’s the only thing Rush and Hibbert have going for them, but that is a matte of opinion I suppose. But here’s the thing you have to take into consideration: most of the guys taken ahead of Hibbert and Rush were drafted by WORSE teams. And if you are a 1)more highly regarded player and 2)playing for an inferior team shouldn’t you by default be getting more playing time and therefore putting up better numbers? I don’t are about Hibbert and Rush having more college experience because that meant nothing on draft night If you are drafted ahead of them you are supposed to be better than them. Period.

And much better coached. No offense to DG's coach but that Kansas team was run to perfection which is why Arthur also was a player of top interest. Mario has also been solid so far in Miami. Those kids along with the Memphis kids probably saw the closest thing to a pro situation they could. UCLA's program wasn't too far off either.

None of those programs necessarily prepare kids to be better pros. Calipari has had a slew of highly regarded recruits (Camby wasn’t one because he was a sleeper I high school) whom he allowed to run and gun and Rose may turn out to be the first of that group that actually has a very good to stellar NBA career. And even Rose admitted weeks ago that the basic stuff like playing the pick and roll that he sees in the NBA is not what he was taught while at Memphis. He’s learning it all now. But Rose is too good to be screwed over by even Calipari’s hands-off, let-‘em-have-fun approach. A guy like Dean Smith was great at preparing guys for the NBA even though his teams didn’t run some crazy, fastbreak, NBA-like offense. Sorry, any player can learn how to run and fill lanes at the next level. In college you want the guys to concentrate more on learning or mastering the basics. The programs you listed above don’t have the rep of doing that under their current coaching regimes. Mario is looking okay for Miami which is a team clearly lacking any point guard play as of now. Doesn’t mean anything. Meanwhile Arthur has been a disappointment so far as has virtually all other players coming out of Kansas since the Self has taken control. Its probably too early for me to judge the man as being bad at preparing guys for the next level. But its also too early to suggest he’s good at it just because his players run all game long. In the end your halfcourt game is what defines you in the NBA. Have you seen any evidence of Calipari teaching an above average halfcourt game at Memphis?

This post isn't about my declaring Hibbert or Rush to be First Team All Rookie or anything like that. But I don't get why some folks here overreact negatively when the two of the get praise thrown their way.

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

Mario is looking okay for Miami which is a team clearly lacking any point guard play as of now. Doesnít mean anything. Meanwhile Arthur has been a disappointment so far as has virtually all other players coming out of Kansas since the Self has taken control. Its probably too early for me to judge the man as being bad at preparing guys for the next level. But its also too early to suggest heís good at it just because his players run all game long.

I'm not sure I understand this aspect of your post. Self runs a pretty disciplined half-court offense at Kansas. He lets them run occasionally, but I wouldn't have described them as a running team. I think Seth was referring to Self teaching fundamental concepts of basketball like passing, team play, and defense. His teams seem to do those things very well.

I was pretty impressed with Arthur in the one preseason game against the Pacers. He's a tweener and that will always hurt him, but he's a very good scorer. The problem that he's got in Memphis is that he's stuck behind guys like Gay, Warrick, and Milicic at the positions he can play. He's not going to get very many minutes this year, but I like him as a small scoring PF off the bench. There's also a slight chance he could develop into a 3 with a lot of work.

Here's something that's never been mentioned, probably because it's pure speculation. Did anybody else take note that Brandon Rush was not in the hotel room with Chalmers and Arthur when they got in trouble?

Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the ROY race, not their overall careers. If they do well as rookies it will be because they get more PT than some other rookies.

I knew that was where he was coming from. And I feel its laughable. Getting minutes doesn't mean anything if you can't produce. If Hibbert and Rush get lots of positive recognition this season it won't just be because of minutes but because of their talents. And since neither is likley to start early in the season (or perhaps not for the entire season) unlike some rookies I don't understand how minutes will be an advantage for them anyway. There will be other rookies on worse teams getting more minutes.

The guy also brought up Bayless. That dude can't beat out Steve Blake or the two Spaniards because he does not know how to play. Some of us haveing been claiming this ever since he suited up for Arizona. He doesn't have SG size and he does not know how to play the point. He's a bit selfish and word is he has already frustrated a number of his teammates. He needs to spend less time talking about making teams who passed over him pay and spend more time working on improving areas of his game. Of course this is the problem with this league when you have far too many kids spending little or no time in college working on their skills and growing up as men.